Posted on 07/23/2013 3:27:33 AM PDT by markomalley
A former Milwaukee priest who was removed from ministry after being charged with sexual abuse but cleared by a jury in a civil trial, is seeking $450,000 in damages from the archdiocese.
Marvin Knighton says he was removed from the priesthood wrongfully, after a jury found him not guilty on sex-abuse charges. Church officials, conducting an independent inquiry, concluded that the charges against him were credible even if they did not meet the “reasonable doubt” standard required in civil law.
Knighton’s claim came to light in bankruptcy proceedings for the Milwaukee archdiocese. His name appears, alongside the names of sex-abuse victims, on the list of archdiocesan creditors.
I wonder when Anderson and associates are going to start taking up those cases (might be a lucrative secondary market)
whatever happened to his vow of poverty?
“whatever happened to his vow of poverty?”
.
The laity has that covered now.
Archdiocesan priests only take vows of chastity and obedience. Only monks and friars who are priests also take vows of poverty.
yes of course you are correct. i was just reacting to the overall gestalt of the situation where a priest would sue his bishop in secular court for a big sum of money. (and while this priest probably did not take a formal vow of poverty, one normally expects that he would not “be in it for the money”)
but yes, you are correct, thanks
He is suing a bankrupt diocese?
Good luck with that...lol.
He still comes off as a rat who's after money. "In manera laici."
Without commenting on the merit of the complaint, I’ll just say that the damages are far from out of line.
He lost his livelihood and isn’t going to get it back. That provided a home free of rent, free board, and a modest salary. In my archdiocese, the last time I looked, the modest salary was in the $20Ks.
If he wins the $450,000, expenses will come off the top, then the lawyer’s contingent fee. He’ll be doing well to get much more than $250,000.
If he takes the $250,000 and buys an annuity, maybe he might get somewhere in the range of $15K - $20K per year. That doesn’t fully replace what he lost financially when he lost his position within the archdiocese.
It appears that his bishop abandoned him. Although the accusation made was judged “credible,” he wasn't held liable in a civil trial, where the standard of proof is merely a preponderance of the evidence.
This means that the jury actually found that it was more likely that he was actually innocent of the offense than guilty.
I understand “protecting our children” at all, but does that include throwing priests who are probably INNOCENT to the wolves? If it does, then the bishops deserve no filial loyalty as they prove once again that they are not true shepherds but rather are hired hands who will throw their sheep to the wolves at first approach of said wolves.
Shouldn't the policy of the Church be to more or less automatically reinstate a priest to the clerical state, and provide former levels of support, upon an actual legal finding of likely INNOCENCE?
The entire “protect our children” policy process has only one goal - protect the bishops at the expense of the laity and the lower clergy.
As well, as I posted above, $450,000 won't go very far if what he's suing for is his loss of livelihood caused by the rodentish actions of his bishop.
sitetest
This is what I am wondering as well. I would hate to see more innocent priests lose everything.
LOL. So loud the windows shook. And then I realized, you might be more right than you know. And increasingly so.
Weird place. There was a priest who had his throat slit just before he planned to expose child abuse back in the ‘90’s. Or so I read. Very creepy story.
If the archdiocese thinks some of the charges have “merit” yet reinstalls this priest just imagine the lawsuits if he has more charges brought against him in the future.
If the archdiocese thought the charges were baseless that might be a different story.
So, mentally delete my previous remarks, please.
Sorry, all. I spoke too soon.
I understand (almost) that the archdiocese may have initially believed that the charges were “credible.” This is similar to the idea of there being probably cause to bring a criminal charge.
But the priest denied the charges, and won in civil court, where the plaintiff must merely demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the defendant was, indeed, liable for the cited offense.
That means that the jury actually believed it was more likely that the priest was innocent than guilty.
If the archdiocese had some direct evidence that would have changed the findings of the jury, the archdiocese should have - in fact, would have been legally obligated, to bring that evidence to light.
This is similar to the Zimmerman case, where folks don't want to accept the results of the judicial system, where folks reject the decision of a jury.
Catholic dioceses are ill-equipped to investigate charges like this beyond the most basic question - is it possible this charge might be true? That's all they ask now before turning these cases over to the authorities. That's all they should have done in the past. It's quite clear that a large part of the crimes committed by Catholic bishops in the past was that they tried to handle these investigations internally, and these investigations got wrapped up in all sorts of issues not related to actually seeking the truth or falsity of the allegations.
The Church only claims competence in spiritual matters and matters of doctrine, and faith and morals. The Church has no special competence in secular investigations or prosecutions. She should generally defer to those bodies that do have special competence in these matters.
Before making absolute judgments about this case specifically, I'd want to know a lot more about it.
But on the face of it, the priest's suit is reasonable. On the face of it, it appears that the priest was largely legally vindicated. If that is what he can demonstrate in a lawsuit, then it is hard to argue that the Church should not have reinstated him and provided him with a position similar to that which he lost when he was apparently wrongfully accused.
sitetest
Priests are not required to take vows of poverty. They MAY if they choose. Most don't.
Nuns and sisters are , but not priests.
I THINK that it has something to do with the longevity of the vows. Nuns/sisters can always be released from all their vows; priests, not so.
Dear Mrs. Don-o, It appears that his bishop abandoned him. Although the accusation made was judged “credible,” he wasn't held liable in a civil trial, where the standard of proof is merely a preponderance of the evidence. This means that the jury actually found that it was more likely that he was actually innocent of the offense than guilty. I understand “protecting our children” at all, but does that include throwing priests who are probably INNOCENT to the wolves? If it does, then the bishops deserve no filial loyalty as they prove once again that they are not true shepherds but rather are hired hands who will throw their sheep to the wolves at first approach of said wolves. Shouldn't the policy of the Church be to more or less automatically reinstate a priest to the clerical state, and provide former levels of support, upon an actual legal finding of likely INNOCENCE? The entire “protect our children” policy process has only one goal - protect the bishops at the expense of the laity and the lower clergy.
As well, as I posted above, $450,000 won't go very far if what he's suing for is his loss of livelihood caused by the rodentish actions of his bishop.
sitetest
Well put.
The Catholic (and evangelical) hating popular media that loathe, hate, detest, despise and abhor said Catholics and Evangelicals NEVER, EVER, ever miss an opportunity to bash. That attitude of hate has spread to even-thinking folks, even here on the FR.
It's a shame.
The Church may know he did it. He might have confessed to it.
Not admissible in court, but at that point the Church cannot give him his job back.
The Church can know no such thing.
One doesn't confess to the Church, one confesses to an individual priest. That priest may never betray in anyway the confidence of the penitent. He may not provide any information, any words, any actions, any hand signals, smoke signals, Morse code, any sort of communication that reveals the substance of the confession by the penitent.
If the leadership of the diocese knows something as a result of something confessed, then there are some folks in the diocese who have incurred excommunication latae sententiae.
sitetest
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.